1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to gaming and to wagering games. More particularly, the present invention relates to a group of games where one or more players, designated as the “Player/Dealer”, puts up a pool or pools of money, the other players in the game make wagers, the winning player wagers are paid from the Player/Dealer's pool(s), the losing player wagers are paid to the Player/Dealer(s).
2. The Prior Art
Numerous casino wagering games are known in the prior art. In a wagering game, there must be a method of paying the winners. Three funding methods are typically used in casino games.
The most common method is where the casino or the “house” funds the wagers. The casino pays players who win, and the casino is paid the player wagers when the players lose. A game played against the casino is typically called a “banking game.”
The second method is used in poker and pari-mutuel wagering. All the funds of the players are placed in a common pool. The game is played, and the money in the pool is paid to the winner or winners. The casino or racetrack may remove a percentage from the pool before the wagers are paid, or all of the pool may be paid to the winner or winners.
The third method is primarily used in jurisdictions, where banking games are not allowed. In it's simplest form, the players take turns taking on the role of “the house.” That player may be designated the “Player/Dealer.” The Player/Dealer puts up a wager or pool of money, and all the other players wager against the Player/Dealer. When a player wins, (s)he is paid from the Player/Dealer wager. When a player loses, the losing wager is paid to the Player/Dealer.
In a casino, the option to be Player/Dealer moves in a systematic way. Usually, each player has the option to be Player/Dealer for two hands, and then the option is offered to the player to his left. If a player chooses not to accept the option, it is offered to the next player on the left.
Another variation in some jurisdictions is that the Player/Dealer may be a representative of the casino for some hands and may be a player for other hands. The representative of the casino is given the same option to be Player/Dealer as the other players. For the purposes of this invention, the source of the funds for the Player/Dealer pool does not matter.
Some of the most common games played with a Player/Dealer are blackjack, Pai Gow, Pai Gow Poker, Pan 9, EasyPoker, Caribbean Stud, and Fast 9.
There are three key features of the use of Player/Dealer wager in the current art that have a negative effect on these games: 1) A Player/Dealer wager may not be large enough to cover all wagers made by other players. 2) When another player wins or loses a wager against the Player/Dealer, only the amount won or lost is removed from action in the Player/Dealer pool. 3) When a player's wager increases during play or a bonus is earned, the Player/Dealer pool is used to fully settle the original wager before the increase or bonus is settled. There are several ways that more than one person can fund the Player/Dealer pool, but these ways do not change any of these features.
The first feature is that in most jurisdictions the casino may not require the Player/Dealer to wager enough money to cover the total amount the other players might win. In many cases, the law forbids requiring the Player/Dealer to cover all wagers. As a result, some players may not get “action” on their wagers. The wagers are settled as long as the Player/Dealer pool has funds left to cover the wagers. The remaining wagers are returned to the players.
The second feature of the current art is that settling a wager always involves removing an amount equal to the amount won or lost from the Player/Dealer pool. If a player wins, that amount is paid to the winning player from the pool. If that player loses, his wager is given to the Player/Dealer, and the same amount is removed from the Player/Dealer pool and returned to the Player/Dealer. These funds can be said to be “retired” and are no longer at risk. In the current art, if less than the original wager changes hands, such as when a blackjack player surrenders, this lesser amount is retired. If no money changes hands, no money is retired. As a result, the Player/Dealer can neither win nor lose more than his/her wager.
For example, if the Player/Dealer wagers $200, and the first player wagers $100 and wins, $100 is taken from the Player/Dealer wager and paid to the first player. Now there is $100 left in the Player/Dealer wager. If the second player has wagered $100, and loses, the $100 the player wagered is paid to the Player/Dealer and the last $100 of the Player/Dealer's wager is returned to the Player/Dealer. Any remaining players will automatically get their wagers back, since there is no more money left in the Player/Dealer pool. The players are said to “get no action” on their bets.
This is a problem because, when players get no action, it is undesirable to both the players and the casinos. Most players wager because they want the excitement of the wager and to have a chance to win. When they get no action, they get neither. Also, when a player gets no action, in many casinos the casino must refund the fee a player may have paid to play the game. This costs the casino revenue.
The third feature of the current art is that the Player/Dealer pool is used to fully settle any original wager before any bonus is paid or any additional wagers are settled. No money is held in reserve for paying bonuses or settling additional wagers.
In a blackjack game, a player with a blackjack is usually paid 3 to 2. This means that a player who wagers $100 will win $150 if he makes a blackjack. However, if there is only $100 in the Player/Dealer pool, the player will only win $100. And if the player loses, he loses $100. Normally the player risks $100 and has the chance to win $150, but with a small Player/Dealer pool, the player risks $100 and can only win $100. The result is that the Player/Dealer advantage increases significantly.
A similar problem can result when a player wants to increase his wager during the play of a hand. The most common examples are splitting pairs and doubling down in blackjack. In blackjack, a player who is dealt a pair as his first two cards can add a second wager and split the pair to form two hands. So a player who originally wagered $100 will have $100 on each of his hands. However, if the Player/Dealer pool only has $100, the second hand will receive no action, unless there is a tie on the first hand. So the player loses the chance to win $200. Again, the Player/Dealer advantage increases if the pool is small.
The situation is similar for doubling down in blackjack. A player may choose to double his wager after seeing his first two cards. The player receives exactly one more card to complete his hand. Normally this is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the blackjack player. When the odds are in his favor, he can double his wager and frequently double his win. However, if there is not enough money in the Player/Dealer pool to cover the double wager, the player's advantage disappears. If the player wagers $100 and there is only $100 in the Player/Dealer pool, there is no reason to double down. This is another example of how the Player/Dealer advantage goes up if the pool is small.
While these examples show cases with one player against the Player/Dealer, even with many players, it is to the advantage of the Player/Dealer to wager less than the players might win. This increases the advantage for the Player/Dealer and the rate at which the other players can expect to lose.
This is bad for the players and the casino. As mentioned earlier, one result of smaller Player/Dealer pools is that players often don't get action on their wagers. This leads to unhappy players and less casino revenue. In addition, an increased advantage for the Player/Dealer hurts the players and casino as well. Players who lose quickly have less fun. They are likely to run out of money, quit sooner, and are less likely to return for more play. Since the casino typically makes money by charging a fee for each hand in a game with a Player/Dealer, all of these situations reduce casino revenue.
There are many variations of how the Player/Dealer's wager is funded, but none of them solve these problems. There are three basic variations: 1) A simple pool, 2) a shared pool, and 3) two or more distinct “sub-pools.” (often called “wagering behind”). More complex variations may occur by combining these basic funding methods.
The entire amount wagered on the Player/Dealer hand will be called the “Player/Dealer pool.” When this pool is made up of more than one part, and one part is settled before the others, each part will be called a “sub-pool”. If there is more than one sub-pool, the sub-pools are assigned a priority, with one sub-pool being the first to be used to settle wagers and the others being used in sequence. The first sub-pool to be used will be called the “first sub-pool”, the next one the “second sub-pool”, etc.
With a simple pool, one person funds the entire Player/Dealer pool. Any winning wagers are paid out of this pool and losing wagers are paid to the person who funded it, as long as the pool is large enough to cover all the wagers. In essence, there is only a “first sub-pool.”
With a shared pool two or more players share in funding the Player/Dealer pool. There is still only one sub-pool, but more than one player funds it. If the players share equally in funding the pool, those funding it would share equally in wins or losses. If they do not share equally in the funding, they share in the wins and losses in proportion to their shares of the pool. For example, one player might put up $100 and another player might put up $50. In this case the first player would win two-thirds of any money won by the Player/Dealer and lose two-thirds of any loss. The second player would win or lose one-third. In theory, any number of players and any ratio of bets may be combined into a single bank to fund the Player/Dealer pool.
The third variation involves two or more distinct sub-pools, where one or more of the sub-pools are said to wager “behind” the first sub-pool. For example if there are two sub-pools of $100, and three player wagers of $50, the first sub-pool might be used to settle the first two wagers, and the second sub-pool would be used to settle the third wager. However, there are many possibilities. One of the first two wagers might result in a tie or “push” where no money changes hands. In this case, the first sub-pool would cover all three wagers. Or if this were a blackjack game and the first player doubled down and doubled his wager to $100, the first sub-pool would only cover this wager, and the other sub-pool would cover the second and third wagers.
The variations of how the Player/Dealer pool is funded do not solve the problems with the current art. No matter how the Player/Dealer pool is funded, there is still a strong financial incentive to wager less than the full amount needed to cover all possible wagers.
While sub-pools provide a mechanism to increase the size of the Player/Dealer pool, the financial incentives don't support this. In most games with a Player/Dealer pool, the first sub-pool has a stronger mathematical advantage than a second or third sub-pool. Depending on the size of the pools, the second and/or third sub-pool may have a disadvantage, even if the first sub-pool has a big advantage. This is even true in a game like Pai Gow Poker, where no bonuses are paid and players cannot increase their wagers. So savvy players will usually not want to be part of a second or third pool.
Two other features of the way money is currently retired can make these problems worse. In some circumstances no money changes hands and in some circumstances less than the original bet may change hands. With the current state of the art, under those circumstances, only the amount that changes hands is retired from the Player/Dealer funds.
The most common example of no money exchanging hands is a “push”, which usually happens in case of a tie. For example, in blackjack, if both players make a hand with a value of 20, it is a tie and no money changes hands. In games with a Player/Dealer, no money is retired from the Player/Dealer funds when this occurs. Due to the mathematical distribution of outcomes, in most games this results in a disadvantage for a player who funds a second or third Player/Dealer sub-pool, discouraging players from making such wagers.
The most common example of less money exchanging hands is the surrender option in blackjack. If a player doesn't like his chances in blackjack after his first two cards, in many casinos the player may choose to surrender one-half of his/her wager and get the other half back. For example, a player who has bet $100 gives up $50, but also gets $50 back. There is no further action on this player's hand and it is discarded. In games, with a Player/Dealer, typically the Player/Dealer receives the amount of the surrender and that amount is retired, not the original wager. In this example, $50 would be returned to the Player/Dealer and taken out of action.
It is a purpose of this invention to eliminate these problems from games with a Player/Dealer, by improving the ways funds are retired and changing the way funds are allocated when there are bonuses and additional wagers. It is a further purpose to provide mechanisms to simply implement the new settlement methods.
The field of this invention is any game where there is a Player/Dealer. This description calls a play of game starting with the wagers and ending with the settling of the wagers a “hand.” This is the common designation of a play of games such as blackjack, Pai Gow Poker, and most other card games. However, the field of the invention covers other games that are not played with cards as well. For example, there are versions of craps, the dice game, which are played with a Player/Dealer. In this case, a complete play is called a “roll” and not a “hand”. The use of the word “hand” simplifies the explanation, but does not limit the field of the invention to card games or games where a complete play is called a “hand”.